20 February 2007

Mitt Romney's Jesus: Father, Son, and Satan's older brother

I hope reporters will ask, and Mitt will answer, questions about his religious views. Like what does he think about Jesus?

Is Jesus both the Father and the Son, as it so clearly says in the Book of Mormon?

God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son -- The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son -- And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. Mosiah 15:1-3

Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal Father. Alma 11:38-39

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth. Helaman 14:12

So Mitt's Jesus is his own father. And he is also, according to the Book of Abraham, Satan's older brother.

(The Books of Abraham and Moses are not part of the Book of Mormon. They're in the Pearl of Great Price, which is included in Mormon Scripture.)

Since the quotes from the Pearl of Great Price are a bit hard to understand, I'll let the LDS church explain it all for us.

Our Father said, "Whom shall I send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).
...
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1).
...
After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, "I will send the first" (Abraham 3:27). LDS.org

So there you have it. Mitt's Jesus, who used to be called Jehovah, is the Father (or ex-Father) and the Son, as well as the older brother of Satan. He is brother and father to us all -- which makes him, I guess, since he is his own father, our very own grandpa.

12 comments:

Zach
said...

I am not sure what Jesus, the Father, and Satan have to do with anything in the 2008 election. The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals ), and hopefully Mitt is willing to keep politics and religion separate. So far he has done a good job, but the ignorant individuals who want to keep the spotlight on it are truly beating a dead horse and getting no where with it. Seriously, are you going to make him change religions to appease the mass?

I hope the media allows room for important questions that really matter to the state of America, as opposed to questions such as was Satan the brother of Jesus or not.

America is founded on religious freedom, that is what makes our country unique. Having a Mormon President would show to the world that we are committed to that freedom, and that we accept all denominations and people.

Concerning Mitt and Mormonism, I respect the fact that he comes from such an obscure religion and willing to stand for it and not deny his membership. That shows a lot of character, and with the way World politics are going, we as Americans may be alone in our policies and views, and we better be ready to stand united and firm in our choices.

In regards to your post, out of a matter of curiosity, if God created everything that exists, then where did Satan come from? Just curious of other views.

Zach said..."The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals )" ---

Come on. "Faith" has nothing to do with morals. Someone may have faith that one of the gods will heal his child. But that doesn't make him a moral person for refusing medical treatment for that child.

And willingness to stand for any religion regardless of it's obscurity has nothing to do with character. Character would be for him to admitt that, "yes I happen to be brought up Mormon but that it doesn't define me anymore than if I happen to be brought up Muslim.

...hopefully Mitt is willing to keep politics and religion separate. So far he has done a good job, but the ignorant individuals who want to keep the spotlight on it are truly beating a dead horse and getting no where with it. Seriously, are you going to make him change religions to appease the mass?

Oh, keep his religion seperate like when he tried to get "plural marriage" legalized in Utah, or when he had no objection to "elders" having 9 year old girls get "married" ???

I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry I'm a woman who believes in self actualization and self determination. while I exist because of a man, I don't exist exclusively for a man.

Because I believe in myself as an individual and a woman, I can't justify voting for a man who believes that women only exist to provide men with sons so that said men can become gods in the hereafter (supposing there is a hereafter.)

The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals)

If you believe that these two are necessarily connected, then I've got some real-estate on Jupiter I'd like to sell you.

America is founded on religious freedom, that is what makes our country unique

But an atheist politician can still not divulge his or her non-belief without risking their careers. (At least on higher levels.) So the freedom isn't complete and religious or non-religious orientation does matter in politics.

I gotta tell you, if Romney gets some serious consideration, it could get very interesting. I know a lot of Christians are going to feel uncomfortable with the prospect of a Mormon in the White House, despite the fact that Mormons share most of the same moral values with Christians, if not theological ones. I wouldn't personally rule out voting for a candidate just for being a Mormon, but I wonder what the "religious right" will think?

First of all, mary, it's "LDS", not "LSD". Big difference. I've personally tried one of the two; see if you can guess which one, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!

Anyway, I often wonder how people think about these issues in a variety of areas. If a political candidate shares your political views, do her religious views really matter? If you're a believer in evolution, would you feel nervous having a doctor who was a creationist?

Maybe it matters only for particular denominations for some people? My current doctor is a Muslim, and I have no problem with that, but I realized when I was looking for a doctor a few years back that I wouldn't feel comfortable having a doctor who was a Scientologist.

Anyway, From what I'm hearing in the media, Romney's current religious affiliation sems to be the same religion that 90% of all politicians adhere to: the Gospel of Saying Whatever Will Get Me into Office.

You need to look at the big picture and not quibble about religious doctrine that has no relevance to being president. The big picture is which person will do the most good for the country -- and in my opinion Mitt Romney is that guy. First he is brilliant; second he solves very tough problems that others can't solve; third he has sound core values; fourth he is a great communitor -- like Regan. Romney is the best person to be president so lets not get bogged down in minor details and focus on the big picture.

... Oh, keep his religion seperate like when he tried to get "plural marriage" legalized in Utah, or when he had no objection to "elders" having 9 year old girls get "married" ???

... I don't exist exclusively for a man."

I think you have Mitt confused with someone else -- he has never advocated these things and Utah and Mitt's Mormon church would never even consider legalizing poligamy. There are some small fringe groups that want this but they are not associated in any way with Mitt or and are not part of his religion.

zach said he was pleased Mitt derived his morals from his faith - well I'd be a little concerned about politicians who derive their morals from the bible, or Mormon scriptures without further reference - it's the way it condones rape, incest, genocide etc that worries me.